County releases Brock Turner court documents

File includes police report, character letters, probation report

Former Stanford University student Brock Turner walks towards the courtroom in Palo Alto as his trial begins on March 17, 2016. Photo by Veronica Weber.

Santa Clara County Superior Court released Friday more than 400 pages of court documents for the Brock Turner case, illustrating the progression of a now internationally contentious case from arrest to sentencing.

The documents range from the early police reports, witness statements and original charges filed by the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office in 2015; to questions submitted by jurors during the three-week long trial in March; to evidence that was not introduced during the trial, including text messages and photographs documenting Turner's recreational drug use and the account of a young woman who reported Turner acting aggressively toward her at a fraternity party one week before the Jan. 8, 2015, assault.

The more than 7,000-word letter from the young woman is also included, as are 39 character letters submitted to the court on behalf of Turner from family members, friends, former teachers and others from his Ohio hometown.

Uproar over Turner's sentencing has swept the nation over the past week. Vice President Joe Biden wrote an open letter to the victim, which opens, "I do not know your name — but your words are forever seared on my soul. Words that should be required reading for men and women of all ages." Rep. Jackie Speier, who visited Stanford in November to speak out against campus sexual assault, read part of the woman's statement in Congress this week and is planning an hour-long reading next week.

One petition calling for the removal of Judge Aaron Persky has gathered more than a million signatures; organizers plan to present it to the California Commission on Judicial Performance on Friday.

A group of state lawmakers also sent letters Friday to the Commission on Judicial Performance and Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, according to other news outlets, criticizing Persky's sentencing decision. They wrote that it "shows bias and undermines public faith in the judicial system."

Stanford law professor Michele Dauber is spearheading a recall of Persky backed by the Progressive Women Silicon Valley State PAC. The campaign announced Friday that three top political consultants have joined the effort.

While Rosen opposes Persky's sentencing, he has said he should not be removed from the bench.

In a statement Friday, the Santa Clara County Bar Association (SCCBA) expressed its opposition to the recall effort, noting "the importance of judicial independence."

"Judges have a duty to apply the law to the facts and evidence before them, regardless of public opinion or political pressure," the statement reads. "If judges had to fear direct, personal repercussions as a result of their decisions in individual cases, the rule of law would suffer."

The bar association said it "has seen no credible assertions that in issuing the sentence, Judge Persky violated the law or his ethical obligations or acted in bad faith."

Stanford students are organizing a protest for Sunday's annual commencement ceremony. Ultra Violet, a Washington, D.C.,-based women's rights organization, announced Friday that it has organized for a plane to fly over Stanford for two hours before commencement starts with a banner that reads, "Protect Survivors. Not Rapists. #PerskyMustGo."

Below are all of the court documents released by the county, which the Palo Alto Weekly has further redacted to protect the identity of the victim in the case and contact information of others involved.

I read Doe's victim statement to the jury and found it to be incredibly poignant and moving and believe it should be required reading for all. I then read the police report and now feel a little manipulated by her very eloquent statement. For example, Doe said that her sister teased her "for wearing a beige cardigan, like a librarian." to the Stanford party; however, the police report said that she was wearing a "skin tight black dress" and brown lace up boots. I'm not trying to imply that the clothes she wore contributed to the sexual assault, but why only mention a beige librarian-like sweater, the words "beige" and "librarian" obviously trying to paint a conservative picture. Why didn't Doe just say she was wearing a black dress with a sweater? Was she being super careful to portray a conservative look? Would it have mattered?

Also in her statement to the jury she only mentioned drinking at the party, but in her statement to the police she said that she arrived at the party already buzzed after drinking four shots of whisky at home. Why didn't she mention this in her statement to the jury instead of implying that all drinking happened at the party where she was just dancing and trying to act silly? Again, she paints a picture of inexperience - not being used to drinking like she did in her college days, an "amateur mistake," she called it, although in the police report she admitted that she had also blacked out after drinking too much when she was a college student. She told the police that after showing up at the party already buzzed from drinking four shots of whisky, she had two shots of Vodka and then some beer until she blacked out drunk and had no memory of the assault that took place. I wish she had been more honest about her excessive alcohol consumption in her statement to the jury. I don't think it would have made a difference, because being inebriated is not an invitation for abuse, but clearly she had much more to drink than she implied in her statement to the jury.

What happened to Ms Doe was tragic, and sadly not an uncommon occurrence at frat parties [portion removed.] Even if she went to the party naked and then passed out trunk surrounded by 100 horny frat boys, it wouldn't have given any of them the right to sexually assault her. Hopefully everyone gets that.

I think it would be really helpful if Turner, as he suggested, would council college students about the dangers of drinking, and especially to never try to "hook up" with a person who has had too much to drink. Sadly, Doe thought this was not a good idea. I don't understand why. I think Doe should also help and get the message across to college students and other young people to not drink to excess, or better yet - not at all, in addition to never try to "hook up" with inebriated people. Hopefully young people will learn something from this tragic event.

Posted by Native
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 11, 2016 at 6:20 pm

Brock + Perjury = 4 years in prison.

Brock Turner perjured himself. The charge for felony perjury can be as high as 4 years in a state prison. It may not be justice for his most odious crime, but 4 years in prison would be a lot better than what he's serving now.

Posted by What Turner Should Do
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 11, 2016 at 7:03 pm

"I think it would be really helpful if Turner, as he suggested, would council college students about the dangers of drinking, and especially to never try to "hook up" with a person who has had too much to drink. "

Personally, I think it would be a good idea if he served 2-3 years in state prison, and then counseled college students about the dangers of committing sexual assault. His mistake wasn't drinking, or being horny - it was committing sexual assault.

Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 12, 2016 at 6:32 ammauricio is a registered user.

The judge could have easily found out that Turner lied and perjured himself, but didn't bother. He base his character evaluation of the defendant on his father's letter. Really? This judge was very obviously hellbent on saving Brock's behind [portion removed.]

Posted by Pants on Fire
a resident of Stanford
on Jun 12, 2016 at 11:33 am

Persky said he took Turners ar his word, that he was truthful. But court records show he lied copiously and did not take responsibility for his actions. Obviously Persky did not take Turner's perjury into consideration--as well as records of the fact that he sent pictures of his nude victim to his friends.

It seems Persky only considered the testimony of Turner--not of the eyewitnesses, not the evidence collected. What kind of judge does that?

Persky needs to be disbarred and go back to Law School--preferably a better one this time, like Santa Clara.

Posted by Jason
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 12, 2016 at 2:48 pm

Sues comments about her alcohol consumption are correct. I actually read through ALL of the court documents linked to and was surprised by some of the actual FACTS of the case vs what has been reported in the media. [Portion removed.] The medical report indicates that they think her BAC levels may have been higher than 32% - that is staggering and several times what constitutes a DUI. The report from her and her sister vary slightly and apparently no attempt was made to clarify the inconsistencies and clarify how much alcohol was consumed.

To get to. BAC of that high it's something like 8-10 drinks in an hour depending on her weight. [Portion removed.]
Alcohol consumption correlates with sexual salts. It's become politically incorrect to discuss that and people will say you a re "victim blaming" but u would encourage everyone to really strongly consider and question your own behavior and consumption and do your best to avoid being in this situation. Data from the FBi are very clear about this and reducing alcohol consumption is one of the most important things we can do to minimize sexual assaults like this in the future.

Posted by Anthony
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 12, 2016 at 3:54 pm

Sue - Doe's letter was to Turner and the judge, not the jury. The jury played no role in the sentencing. And her letter was not evidence in the case, it was an explanation of how the crime and trial had impacted her. She is not obliged to mention every element of her clothing that night.

Jason - Start over. You don't read very carefully, so please don't opine with such ignorance.

Posted by Dr. J.S. Ferris
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 13, 2016 at 10:39 am

Isn't Persky's decision contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals? How safe is any woman in California if he is not held responsible for his ruling without sanction? Isn't a legal system that allows this to happen in the future (given Persky is not held responsible for extremely poor "judgement") institutional "rape"? Does not his ruling discriminate on the basis of sex (gender)? Would not a legal excusing, on legal/technical grounds, Persky's decision in this [portion removed] case -- itself an example of the legal codification of moral turpitude? Does not Persky's ruling undermine the public's trust/faith in the judicial system?

â€œThe bar association said it "has seen no credible assertions that in issuing the sentence, Judge Persky violated the law or his ethical obligations or acted in bad faith."

Shame on you, California Bar Association, for not defining what are "no credible assertions", and for your morally reprehensible behavior in turning your back on the rape victim. What is credible here is the lack of mercy in Persky's ruling and your support of it. Too bad "non obstante veredicto" cannot be applied by you to the judge -- so much for "legal reasoning".

Posted by BAC
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 13, 2016 at 12:25 pm

Hey Jason,

You are wrong only by a factor of x100. 32% BAC is not physically possible. That was 0.32%, obviously. That is very high; with her presumed body weight she could have died.

Another mistake. Talking alcohol now, although certainly a valid point, shifts the conversation away from the point. Don't you get that?

Four shots of scotch and then something at the party is not a good idea for anybody, particularly a young girl, particularly going to a frat party. What was she thinking? Was that a crime? No.
Did the guy commit a crime? Yes.
Did the judge make a sketchy decision? Yes.

Dr. J.S. Ferris: Please explain how you can prevent drunken college students at frat parties from behaving irresponsibly? Have you ever been to a frat party? Read the police report link in this article and you will see that all parties involved, even some of the witnesses, were so drunk their speech was slurred. Emily's Doe's sister wasn't around to supervise her drunken older sister because she was walking her drunk friend to her dorm. Turner was also drunk. Please explain how the legal system could have prevented what happened between two intoxicated people? Inebriated people don't think rationally.

I don't know what the answer is. Mandatory training for all college students that "no means no" and don't "hook up" with an intoxicated person? Mandatory chaperones at every party, watching for drunkenness and inappropriate behavior? Not allowing two intoxicated people to leave the party together? Security guards walking women safely home to their dorms after a party? Outlaw booze?

Even if Turner had received a life sentence, I guarantee that it will not prevent something similar from happening again. Stopping the excessive drinking will surely help.

Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 13, 2016 at 12:42 pm

Anyone see the "1/3" protest signs on the mortarboards at Stanford Commencement? They're protesting the fact that 1/3 of Stanford students are sexually assaulted. The 33% figure is higher than 26% for the national average of all women sexually assaulted.

Did you also see the statistics that only 4 of out of a 1,000 rapists are ever sent to jail? And keep in mind that the 1,000 number is very very low because of how rape victims are treated by the court system.

Posted by cid
a resident of another community
on Jun 13, 2016 at 12:50 pmcid is a registered user.

Sadly, the "Good Ole Boy's" network appears to be "circling the wagons", first around Turner in the light sentencing and then in defense of the biased comment by Judge Perksy. Perhaps The perpetrator will experience some rough justice while incarcerated, since the 6 months sentencing does not seem appropriate to most women.

Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 13, 2016 at 1:03 pmGale Johnson is a registered user.

We live in a totally different world today...and not a better one, in MHO. Twenty years ago, maybe only 15, or whenever, but before the online media took hold like it has now, it was a more civil discourse on cases like this. Now, with everyone having the ability to express rage, and opining on anything and everything online instantly, it has taken away from the original intent of the separation between the legislative process, and those elected officials in it, and the judicial process, with judges, also elected, but w/o anybody knowing anything about them and their record. Now we all get to be experts on both. Whee...isn't this fun? Well, it shouldn't be but here I am enjoying it.

@Sue, thank you. There is so much we never knew before and more that is available now, but most of us will never bother to read and find out about all that's in those released records and the transcript. That doesn't bother many posters who are quick to make judgements on the case and on the judge without that. "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up".

And @Dr. J. S. Ferris
It was not rape, and those weren't the charges. Refs/umpires make mistakes, even medical doctors make mistakes. I might be falsely putting you into that category. If you're not a medical doctor I apologize. But just to illustrate...the AMA is protective of its members...almost always supports doctors, many who are accused of malpractice. This is not a perfect world we live in, never has been and never will be, but I personally think the judge should be judged by his peers, other serving judges, who have ruled on similar cases and not by rabid raving online mobs that are too emotional and not even close to understanding the real facts of the case.

Posted by Yes, actually
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jun 13, 2016 at 1:53 pm

@Sue writes: "...I don't know what the answer is. Mandatory training for all college students that "no means no" and don't "hook up" with an intoxicated person? Mandatory chaperones at every party, watching for drunkenness and inappropriate behavior? Not allowing two intoxicated people to leave the party together? Security guards walking women safely home to their dorms after a party? Outlaw booze? "

Yes, actually.

In fact, alcohol is already illegal for most of these frat party students. So not much is needed other than enforcing laws we have. Drunken disorderly is also illegal. So, again, no new laws needed.

"What should we do?" This shouldn't be some giant mystery.

I don't understand your question marks above - are you asking if these are possible? I fail to see why they are not already done.

Enforce underage drinking, enforce drunken disorderly, YES - require chaperone's at frat parties (the school could do this easily). Not allow two drunk people to leave together - sure! All good ideas. None of these are hard to do.

That it isn't already common practice is simply a failure of imagination, and a very very small amount of administration work. These are largely underage students behaving stupidly. Put an adult in the room, and the problems go way, way down. Put a cop in the frat house, and the problems stop pretty fast.

The university could easily do that. This problem could be fixed in a week if they wanted to fix it.

Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 13, 2016 at 2:31 pmGale Johnson is a registered user.

Thanks, Yes, actually,

In any fraternity the ages probably range from 18 to 22, so any of those under age 21 wouldn't be legally allowed to drink alcohol. A very ridiculous expectation for those under 21 as anyone who was ever in a fraternity knows. And SU will never try to police or enforce laws inside frat houses. It's a fact, so what can be done? It will only be thru education and cases like this one that has gotten so much exposure. I hope this is being discussed in every fraternity and sorority on campus.

Posted by Jim H
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 13, 2016 at 3:04 pmJim H is a registered user.

Has there been any discussion about looking into the Stanford Swimming program, as a whole? I don't believe much of what Turner said, but he seemed to stress that drinking and drugs were expected parts of being on the swim team. [Portion removed.] Members of the swim team were cited by campus police for underage drinking. Was there not any punishment? In the court documents, on Turner's phone, there's a notification of a photo sent from "Curtdoge". 15 minutes later Justin Buck replies to photo "Whos tit is that"? [Portion removed.]

Was the swim team passing around photos of the victim?

Had this been an SEC football team, it'd be all over Sportscenter. Baylor just lost their AD, President and football coach for a pattern of sexual assaults. Other programs have been turned upside down for being unable to control their athletes. Why isn't anything being done about the Stanford Swimming program?

Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 13, 2016 at 3:51 pmGale Johnson is a registered user.

@ Jim H,
Good question, but I have a hunch it isn't just limited to the swimming program. Stanford has dozens of sports programs, and I'm just speculating that they don't have any specific rules for their athletes, other than what SU has instituted in a broad brush way for all of its students.

Posted by BAC
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 13, 2016 at 4:21 pm

Yes, actually and Jim H:

Agree completely.
The university can and must have appointed "marshals", or hired security, or other similar duty individuals to enter the parties and see if things are getting out of hand. Will not eliminate atrocities but will make them fewer.

Will the university stay in business with all the freedom violations? You bet it will.

Same with the swimming team. The coach may be looking away but if a couple of athletes get arrested and reprimanded .. news will spread quickly.
Not easy but any culture can be changed. To the worst - quickly, to the better - much slower but it can be done.

The name of Stanford is already marred by this a lot. Would be good to start changing things now not waiting for someone to die.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jun 13, 2016 at 4:29 pmPeter Carpenter is a registered user.

California"s Social Host law states:

"(d) Nothing in subdivision (c) shall preclude a claim against a parent, guardian, or another adult who knowingly furnishes alcoholic beverages at his or her residence to a person under 21 years of age, in which case, notwithstanding subdivision (b), the furnishing of the alcoholic beverage may be found to be the proximate cause of resulting injuries or death."

SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY IN CALIFORNIA [CIVIL CODE Â§1714(d)]

Stanford IS the social host for any event that occurs on property which Stanford owns and controls.

When will the Santa Clara DA start enforcing this law?

Why don't those who have been harmed by drunk students start suing Stanford?

Posted by Not judging
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 13, 2016 at 4:48 pm

From the Probate Report People vs Brock Allen Turner June 2, 2016

Regarding sentencing, the victim stated, "I still feel a lot of anger because of what he put me through at trial. ......I want him to be punished, but as a human, I just want him to get better. I don't want him to feel like his life is over and I don't want him to rot away in jail; he doesn't need to be behind bars."

Posted by Jim H
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 13, 2016 at 5:01 pmJim H is a registered user.

@ Not judging - She said that when she assumed he was sorry for what he did. Please read her ENTIRE victim statement. You'll see she addresses her original thought of not having him "rot away in jail". Here's an excerpt. I suggest you read the whole thing.

"I told the probation officer I do not want Brock to rot away in prison. I did not say he does not deserve to be behind bars. The probation officerâ€™s recommendation of a year or less in county jail is a soft time-out, a mockery of the seriousness of his assaults, and of the consequences of the
pain I have been forced to endure. I also told the probation officer that what I truly wanted was for Brock to get it, to understand and admit to his wrongdoing.

Unfortunately, after reading the defendantâ€™s statement, I am severely disappointed and feel that he has failed to exhibit sincere remorse or responsibility for his conduct. I fully respected his right to a trial, but even after twelve jurors unanimously convicted him guilty of three felonies, all he has admitted to doing is ingesting alcohol. Someone who cannot take full accountability for his actions does not deserve a mitigating sentence. It is deeply offensive that he would try and dilute rape with a suggestion of promiscuity. By definition rape is the absence of promiscuity, rape is the absence of consent, and it perturbs me deeply that he canâ€™t even see that distinction."

When you read the statements by his parents you realize why he is so clueless.

Anthony wrote: "Sue, Doe's letter was to Turner and the judge, not the jury."

Anthony, Doe wrote in her victim statement: "everyone in this room has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much." Are you saying that "everyone" referred only to the judge and Turner? Was she really implying that the judge most likely drank too much? I'm sure that went over well.

You also said "she is not obliged to mention every element of her clothing that night." True, but why only mention a beige sweater that her sister said made her look like a librarian when she was also wearing not just a black dress, but according to the police report, a "skin tight" black dress. It was best to only mention the frumpy sweater. I do agree that her clothing was irrelevant, so why mention the sweater at all?